For my master thesis at Software Engineering, I want to investigate in the new development technique BDD (Behaviour-Driven Development). In my opinion this technique could really improve on customer satisfaction, code coverage and bugs because of the force of executable specifications and the customer-understandable language.

For my thesis however, I struggle with the way I am going to validate that BDD could work better in certain circumstances. At the company I work during my study, work is still mostly done in a traditional, iterative way, where it sometimes is hard to change requirements after the requirements elicitation stage.

My question is, are there any people who already did projects with BDD, what are their experiences and have you ever felt something about BDD that you would want to investigate in, commencing on the above paragraphs? This could help me a lot with constructing my research question. Thanks in advance!


5 Answers 5


BDD is actually TDD with fixed terminology (see here).

BDD wiki provides a clear explanation. If done right, it can work quite well. At least it worked very well in my team when we switched from almost cowboy coding. The code coverage increased, and with it, the number of bugs reduced, and quality increased.

What is also good about it is that you automatically get YAGNI, KISS and if done right SOLID.

how the output of a new development technique like BDD can be validated?

As other development methods, BDD is not a silver bullet (such thing still doesn't exists in the software development). If after some time you do not see improvements in the code quality, then it's better not to use it. Under code quality, I mean : less bugs, easier to implement change requests, etc.

  • Thank you for the response, I'll look in to that. I am however still wondering how the output of a new development technique like BDD can be validated. Feb 3, 2012 at 8:53
  • @MartijnvanderMaas extended the answer. HTH Feb 3, 2012 at 9:29

I think it would be a very valuable contribution to validate / test the premise that BDD leads to a leaner, more user-oriented test suite.

Codebases become very difficult to evolve over time in part because it is difficult to differentiate accidental complexity from domain-driven exceptions. That is, when one looks at a piece of code that seems like it could be refactored to be more simple, one has to consider the very real possibility that the complexity derives from some domain rule. ("Can we refactor foo->bar->bat->baz to get rid of bar or bat?" "Gee, we must have bar and bat for some reason!")

In a modern codebase, we expect that that all this complexity is exercised by test code. The instant we delete bar or bat we expect the suite to break, not just bar and bat, but foo too, since it's dependent. The premise of BDD is that you have user-meaningful frames that show that bar is low user-value, bat is associated with more value, and foo is very high, so, theoretically, you should be able to say "Well, we have to restore every foo test to green, we have to get these bat behaviors back, but we can lose bar entirely."

But is that really how it works? Or do BDD test-suites just devolve into a thin cover of "As a user of foo I expect the bar to be valid?" (testing the implementation rather than the user-valuable behavior)?

  • Thanks for all your great comments! I will look into these subjects and try to research which question will be feasible for me! Feb 5, 2012 at 14:02
  • So, if I understand you correctly, you mean by the last sentence, that BDD is actually the same as TDD, and is still not testing real behavior of the software? Feb 5, 2012 at 22:45
  • That's the question: Does BDD lead to a test suite that's truly more focused on user value? Or is it, as you say, "actually the same" as TDD. (FWIW, I think it can help, but without a BDD champion / enforcer I think it tends to become just a thin layer on TDD.) Feb 5, 2012 at 23:28
  • Well thanks, that is an interesting angle and could shed some light on the purpose and added-value of the development-technique. The question remains of-course, how this hypothesis can be validated. Feb 7, 2012 at 22:38

It will be difficult to do statistical analysis on the difference between two development methodologies. It's possibly beyond the scope of a Phd let alone a masters thesis.

One thing that could be interesting is a deep dive on a specific deliverable. For instance, how does the estimate (or test plan) differ in each? If you keep it manageable you may find a way to convince your boss to try a baby step too.


First understand that Behavior Driven Development (BDD) does not equal executable specifications in customer language.

Behavior driven development is equal to test driven development (TDD) in behavioral language.

TDD/BDD can yield great benefits to design, code quality, etc, if done pragmatically by BDD experienced developers.

Executable requirements can also yield benefits, but this depends more on your relationship with your customer, the nature of the product, and the organization.

> (...) have you ever felt something about BDD that you would want to 
> investigate in (...) ? 
> This could help me a lot with constructing my research question. 

When usig dotnet-specflow i found it difficuilt to keep track of reusable step/action-method definitions and correspondig textfragments. For me it feels like having software with many global variables and methods.

May be your research can cope with organising these?

  • So you mean that when you write a feature file, you can't see afterwards which code is coupled to this specific feature? Or that your code that is generated from your feature file doesn't link to the actual production code? Do you think this could be a research subject or more a practical shortcoming of SpecFlow? Feb 8, 2012 at 11:29
  • 1
    I think this is not a specflow specific issue. When you create or update a test and want to add "Customer has ordered ($numberOfitems$) items" do you already have this step somewhere as reusable codefragment or not?
    – k3b
    Feb 8, 2012 at 13:38
  • Okay, thanks for the elucidation. And you think this is a major problem with the current tools for BDD or that BDD should provide a sort of mechanism for keeping track of the (reusable) steps? Feb 9, 2012 at 11:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.